In his recent book on the Arian Controversy (Nicaea and its legacy, 2004), Ayres refers to “Athanasius' own strongly unitarian account” (Ayres, p. 435). He says: > “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent > scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly > unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal > differentiation is underdeveloped” (Ayres, p. 238).

I might be getting a bit pedantic, but when biblical scholars use the phrase "The 10 Lost Tribes" then isn't it a bit misleading? The reason being is that the biblical passage 2 Chronicles 11:16-17 does mention that some of the members of the 10 members of the Northern tribes of Israel do settle in the Southern Israelite Kingdom of Judah: > ( 2 Chronicles 11:16-17 ) > > "And those from all the tribes of Israel who set their hearts to seek > the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God > of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made > Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong for three years, because they > walked in the way of David and Solomon for three years." Furthermore, Jeremiah 31 which was written long after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was taken into exile by the Assyrian kingdom does mention the Ephraim( representing all the 10 Northern Israelite tribes ) by emphasizing that God did Not forget Ephraim: > Jeremiah 31:20 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 20 “Is Ephraim My dear son? Is he a delightful child? Indeed, as often > as I have spoken against him, I certainly still remember him; > Therefore My [a]heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on > him,” declares the Lord. Therefore, it might sound comical but isn't it more nuanced & better to use the phrase "members of the 10 Northern Tribes of Israel who went into oblivion or assimilation" as opposed to "the Ten Lost tribes" ?

Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 describe God as the one "*who was, and is, and is to come*", a phrase emphasizing His eternal nature and unchanging presence across time. In contrast, Revelation 17:8 speaks of the beast (often interpreted as representing the devil or a satanic figure), saying it "*was, and is not, and is to come,*" which appears to mimic God’s description but with a distorted twist. **What attribute of God is being emphasized through this triadic formula?** And how does the similar but corrupted version applied to the beast expose the devil's nature as unstable, temporal, or counterfeit? Is this a deliberate contrast showing God's immutability and sovereignty versus the devil's impermanence or false imitation of divine authority?

I have this question for a school assignment but it doesn’t specify what journey. Please help!

Where were the two 'thieves' that were crucified at the same time as Jesus, laid to rest? as Jesus was in the tomb, where were their bodies put? Thank you

In a [brief article on the Trinity](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Articles_on_the_Westminster_Confession_of_Faith/4) by Gordon H. Clark, he makes a surprising claim about a popular trinitarian hymn: > The hymn book of one denomination has rewritten "Holy, Holy, Holy," so as to exclude all reference to "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity." I'd like to know what hymn book and denomination he's referring to. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy,_Holy,_Holy) doesn't mention any such rendition, and he doesn't provide any other identifying information about this denomination. It's possible that the following paragraph's contrast to the "Presbyterian church" indicates that the change was made in a non-presbyterian hymnal, but that's not definitive. And this article was written in 1954, so the hymnal must have been published before then, but probably not long before. Which denomination and hymnal is Clark likely referring to?

There is a substantial number of people who self-identify as or are otherwise classified as "African-Americans" in the United States who consider themselves Christians. Were the ancestors of those "African-Americans" who were captured, mainly on the west coast of Africa, Christians when they were captured by various African and European war parties, or did those captured Aftricans only become Christians after being captured and embarked to European colonies outside of Africa?

And what is the name of this Angel of the LORD, who later also made many other appearances, but only in the Old Testament?

According to the Catholics, Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. Which denominations also teach that those who have not heard the Gospel and are ignorant of Christ can be saved if they seek the truth and obey God?

This question relates somewhat to the one posted here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107637/are-indulgences-previously-granted-by-popes-still-in-effect-unless-specified-oth The following (which is part of a preparatory prayer for the *Stations of the Cross* devotion) is extracted from pg. 301 of [*Mary, Help of Christians*](https://ia801604.us.archive.org/20/items/MaryHelpOfChristians/MaryHelpOfChristians_text.pdf) I have long been under the impression that an Indulgence can be gained either for oneself or for the souls in Purgatory (but not both). After reading the above, I am not so sure. QUESTION: May an indulgence simultaneously be obtained **both** for oneself and for the souls in Purgatory (if it is not specified that it is applicable only to one or the other---such as, the indulgence associated with visiting a cemetery on All Souls Day.)? Thank you.

I figured in heaven it’s a totally different reality than the life we have here on earth. So, I believe in heaven race, color, creed, nationality, and ethnicity will not exist in heaven. Plus, it’s heaven—-paradise—-a place of bliss for believers of Christ. Plus, we get new heavenly, immortal bodies. I don’t want them to be subject to race and color or nationality again in heaven. God forbid. So I am hoping that in heaven I will not be black ever again. Don’t ask why I just want this. I know marriage isn’t in heaven, but if romantic love or divine love for people in heaven which includes romantic love is in heaven then I am all for it. I want to see my crush in heaven with me even if he did marry in this earth. I know in heaven he will love me too. I just hope heaven won’t be disappointing lol. Other than that I hope I won’t be black in heaven, because it just doesn’t define me as a soul or person.

Consider, for example, the prayer to one's Guardian Angel with specified indulgences (extracted from p. 269 of the 1909 book, [*Mary, Help of Christians*](https://ia801604.us.archive.org/20/items/MaryHelpOfChristians/MaryHelpOfChristians_text.pdf) : I know that presently, the Church does not specify partial indulgences anymore in terms of days; nevertheless, I would like to know: QUESTION: If when one sees promulgated a particular partial or plenary indulgence by a Pope, is it still valid [unless specified otherwise (*i.e,* intended to be of short duration) or revoked by a later Pope?] Remark: I believe that in the case of the above prayer to one's Guardian Angel, the indulgence is still in effect for I recall having seen it in the most recent (1994 or so) *Enchiridion Indulgentiarum* although with a different formula for the prayer. Nevertheless, there have been other indulgences granted by Popes in the past (*e.g.,* Prayer to St. Joseph the Worker by Pope St. Pius X with a 500 indulgence attached to it)---that I do not recall having seen in the Enchiridion. Thank you.

I have been taught all my Christian life that the uniquely Pauline expression "the works of the law" found in the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians refers to acts of righteousness, good works and keeping God's commandment. So when Paul denounces the works of the law as lacking justification value, it is taught that it is acts of righteousness, good works and obedience to God's commandments that he denounces. Even though I often wrestled with this identification when I read some passages of Scripture that seem to contradict it, I generally accepted it as the truth. I have however studied the expression and the context in which it is used by Paul and have found it to be referring to circumcision and contingent works and not to righteousness, good works or acts of obedience to God's moral law. I am now curious to find out the origin of the interpretation. I want to be sure I have not missed anything that was considered to arrive at it which makes my conclusion to differ. Has anyone done a study on this or come across any exposition giving the background to this interpretation?

Will we be subject to being part of a particular race in heaven like we were here in this earth or will it be different than here? Personally, I don't want to be part of a particular race. I don't want there to be ethnicities, nationality or creeds there. Heaven is a place of bliss and everything good and holy. Our heavenly bodies should not be subjected to these things.

Deuteronomy speaks several times of a curse attached to God’s law given to Moses, especially in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. 11:26-30 & 27:4-26.) It is also mentioned elsewhere in the O.T. and Paul goes into this curse to help Christians avoid it (e.g. Galatians 3:10-12). In principle, the law of Moses could bring either a blessing or a curse. That was its very nature. But **this question is only interested in what ‘the curse of the law’ is.** Because this is so vast a topic, I have posted 2 separate follow-up questions, to prevent massive answers, or a debate arising, or lots of comments. The other 2 ask ***‘[Who lie under the curse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107549/who-lie-under-the-curse-of-the-law-of-moses-2nd-of-3-questions-on-this-topic)’*** and then, ***‘[What are the consequences of the curse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107550/what-are-the-consequences-of-the-curse-attached-to-the-law-of-moses-3rd-of-3-q)’*** This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

Who did it apply to in the time of Moses, then in the time of Christ what did Paul say about Gentiles also being cursed in their rebellion (disobedience)? (e.g. Romans 1:18-23 & 2:14-15 & 3:9). Does this mean that the curse rested not only upon the Jews, who had the written law, but also on all men seeking acceptance with God through works of law-keeping? ***The 3rd question in this series asks about [what the consequences of the curse are](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107550/10672).*** This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him. LINK to 1st question in series: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107548/what-is-the-curse-of-the-law-of-moses-1st-of-3-questions-on-this-topic/107619#107619

Isn't the point of the life of Jesus to get us to change our hearts and change our behaviors? Shouldn't then the main defining feature of denominations be essentially to what degree you are asked to love? To renounce this world? To the ethical standards you are held? So e.g. a certain denomination might be defined as people who say they believe in the message of Jesus, sing some songs, eat/drink some food, and go once a week. Another denomination might be defined by being of believers who don't eat meat, are pacifist, share all possessions in common, shave their head/beard, and refrain from 300 other nefarious practices, all while partaking in a high church style liturgy 3 times a day and spending at least 3 hours a day in deep centering prayer. In these example denominations, what really defines them is their behavior. Their behavior is downstream of the love, renunciation, peace, joy etc. present in their hearts. But you really don't need sophisticated beliefs to get your heart right. You need to change your desires and your behavior. So again, why are so many denominations defined by abstract, metaphysical matters of theology? Why aren't they defined solely by the behaviors and the desires they are aiming to cultivate or relinquish? Jesus was no theologian. Jesus was a man of action.

Christian doctrine—particularly in Protestant traditions—teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith (e.g., Ephesians 2:8-9). However, Revelation 20:12 states that the dead are "judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books." How do Christians reconcile salvation by grace with a final judgment based on works? If our works don’t contribute to our salvation, what is their role in the judgment described in Revelation and similar passages?

I thought of this when I was researching [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3121/when-did-knowledge-of-christs-sacrifice-become-necessary-for-salvation) . [Leviticus 4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&version=NIV) goes into great detail about the sacrifice that must be made in order for a sin to be forgiven. However, we see here that God actually provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. Specifically, Leviticus 16 shows that this sacrifice and the [Day of Atonement](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&version=NIV) did provide forgiveness of sins: >[Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:30&version=NIV)Emphasis added
>because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. **Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.** Now, Jews no longer provide sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, however God has still provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. (See [Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore?](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8862/why-dont-jews-sacrifice-animals-anymore) for more information.) So, if God has previously given us a way to have forgiveness of our sins, why did he send Jesus to be our ultimate sacrifice? *Edit:*
I believe that there is some doctrinal basis for this. I'm not sure which specific doctrine would best be applied to this, but I am seeking a mainstream Protestant doctrine on the matter.

According to the Natural Law why is it wrong for infertile people to engage in nonreproductive sex acts? For example, what if a woman is too old to get pregnant, lacks necessary reproductive organs, is in an infertile period of her menstrual cycle, or is already pregnant? What would be wrong with such women engaging in unnatural sex acts with their husbands? How is this contrary to the reproductive end of sex?